Missing out on masterpieces. (UPDATED!)

So everybody's making a big deal out of the Beatles' catalog being available on iTunes now. As far as that goes vis-a-vis the Beatles, all I can say is, meh. (I always thought that, along with Bruce Springsteen, they were one of the most overrated acts in pop music history. The Rolling Stones always appealed much more to me.)

But there is something about the whole thing that bugs me -- the whole downloading-just-one-or-two-songs-per-album phenomenon. For the life of me I can't understand why any music fan would do this. Whenever you get a group of fans together and a discussion gets rolling, inevitably said discussion is going to turn to "Favorite Unreleased Album Cuts." And such treasures are going to go undiscovered with this new business model that concentrates on the song instead of the album. I can think of (almost literally) a thousand examples for myself off the top of my head; but just for one example, if I had downloaded what were then my two favorite songs from Iron Maiden's Powerslave cd -- "Aces High" and "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" -- I would have missed out on "Losfer Words (Big 'Orra)," "Flash of the Blade" and "The Duellists" -- as Albatross said of that last one, "Never very popular, yet oh so good." The title track and "Back In The Village" were also worth the price of the cd even if they didn't end up being favorites.

And the same could be said for those thousand other examples. I don't know what this new business model holds for the future of the music industry vis-a-vis its profitability, but as far as creativity goes I don't think it's going to be good. What's the incentive for the artists and labels to spend all that money on recording 8-12 songs if fans are going to buy only two or three of them? And I know every genre's fans are going to be different, but what of unreleased gems from other genres -- like, say, George Strait's rollicking version of the Del Reeves classic "Good Time Charley's"? I sure hate to think recordings like that would go unmade or be phased out for more popular downloads. Thoughts, anyone?

UPDATE! Sabra with her comments made me think to Google "B-Side hits," which yielded this link. Some of my favorites:

"Born on the Bayou," CCR

"Not Fade Away," Buddy Holly

"Roadhouse Blues," The Doors

"Mercedez Benz," Janis Joplin

"Get Rhythm," Johnny Cash

"After the Thrill Is Gone," the Eagles

"Love Is A Rose," Linda Ronstadt

Now wouldn't it have been a shame if those songs had gone unrecorded?

They say this like it's a good thing.

And it doesn't surprise me, but still I shake my head...

"We had to bring something new to the table," (Rascal Flatts lead singer Gary) LeVox said. "Call it what you want but we sure love making country music and I think we've been able to open some doors for people like Taylor Swift. Who would've ever thought you'd hear Bon Jovi on country radio with Kid Rock? We might've had a little hand in opening the door to radio and getting them played."

I am reminded of Kevin Coyne's recent post at Country Universe:

Dear Country Music,

Don’t get too excited about Taylor Swift’s sales numbers. They have nothing to do with you.

And, of course, in the comments there people observe that they have heard people say things to the effect of "I don't like country music, but I love Taylor Swift." I've talked about all this before, but I don't see why Bon Jovi and Kid Rock getting played on country radio is a good thing. I'd be tempted to make an exception for Kid Rock given his professed affinity for the old country, but he seems to blow his potential as a Real Country Singer all to hell every chance he gets. And I've said before that I don't see why Taylor Swift's success within the country genre is a good thing. Why are certain artists so hellbent on attracting people to the genre who never had any appreciation for it? Going back to one of my favorite anecdotes, it was a mere hop, skip and a jump for me from Metallica's self-titled black album to the wonderful world of '80s thrash, power and progressive metal. (It might have taken longer if I hadn't gotten Sirius satellite radio, but still...) I don't see that working out in the context of country music, especially since Metallica's self-titled album wasn't nearly as different from their earlier music as Rascal Flatts and Taylor Swift are from older country music. I just don't see today's Rascal Flatts and Taylor Swift fan being tomorrow's Loretta Lynn and Merle Haggard fan, especially since radio has such an aversion to playing the legends.

So, given all that, it alternately makes me laugh and grind my teeth to see Joe Don Rooney whining about people not thinking RF is a country act. I am reminded of what the reviewer at Amazon.com wrote in his review of their debut album ten years ago:

"With harmonies as squeaky-clean as their faces, Rascal Flatts relish the pop and lite-groove direction that the genre has taken at the turn of the century. In fact, they seem to take pride in their distance from hard-core country roots. To their credit, this trio of earnest young men sounds as if they are truly enjoying themselves as they run through their bouncy, bubbly love songs. And at least these boys don't pay lip service to keeping country traditions alive in 2000."

That would have been what I'd have written had I not had such a visceral reaction to RF back in the day, as opposed to, "Good Hank Williams, do these guys suck." And membership in the Country Music Hall of Fame? The day Rascal Flatts gets into the Country Music Hall of Fame is the day they need to nuke the site from orbit, 'cause it'll be the only way to be sure.

(h/t Country California)

The critic does have a place...

...but I still don't understand why this was ever the case (in bold -- ed.):

In the information age, the relationship between professional critic and reader has become so complex and frayed that it’s difficult for either party to know what is expected, or what to expect, from the other. That used to be a pretty simple exchange. Back in the day, the very fact that one had earned a position as a critic at an organ capable of reaching the entire country was de facto proof of one’s value as an analyst.

I don't understand what it is about being a critic at a major media outlet that makes one's opinion on something so subjective as music (or, for that matter, books and film) any more valuable than anyone else's. Critics are only human just like the rest of us and are going to have their own likes and dislikes. I don't know for sure if that was ever taken into account to any significant extent, but if it wasn't, it should have been. You know what I think about certain bands. Would it make any sense at all, for example, for me to review a Rascal Flatts album? There's no way I could do that with an unbiased ear. I think this would probably be the gist of my review:

"I suppose as a pop album this might be good. But as a country record it blows. Go buy you some George Strait or Jamey Johnson."

Of course there's the flip side of the unbiased critic, the gushing fanboy -- "OMG this album rulz! If you don't like it your a hater!" And I'm sure there are some of those on Amazon.com or the like that "Authorized Critics" would love for us to think are the majority of music fans posting reviews. But as I've said before, for many if not most albums whose reviews I've read on Amazon.com, the reviews have been pretty well-thought-out. Yeah, they're from fans of the bands in question, but so what? I'd argue this gives them that much more credibility. Fans have expectations too, and any honest fan will call the artist out if those expectations are not met. I don't understand what's so difficult to comprehend about any of this. And I don't understand why there was any "relationship" between a critic and a fan to begin with. It's just always struck me as another kind of elitism: "Listen to me. My tastes are refined and diverse."

Sure they are. I'm sure fans of most new "country" would say the same thing.

"I like a lot of music, from Carrie Underwood to Metallica. The black album* totally pwned."

"Mm. So what's your opinion of Iron Maiden? How about Lefty Frizzell?"

"Um...who?"



*Nothing against the Black Album, btw. Despite its difference from early Metallica I still really like it. It's just that the album was the band's most successful and the one a lot of music fans would probably think of when Metallica is mentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the sole Metallica album in many people's music collections. You know how a lot of folks' tastes are -- a mile wide and an inch deep. Somehow I don't think the Authorized Critic is THAT much different.)

Dude, you wish.

Eric Church on Miranda Lambert:

She's like a female version of me.

Really? Try as I may, for the life of me I can't remember Miranda Lambert ever talking about how much of a badass she was or how people thought it was cool to wear shirts with her picture on them to class. I loved what CMW had to say about that quote as he attributed it:

"Eric Church on tourmate – and, apparently, now that she’s a big deal, kindred spirit – Miranda Lambert."

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Batting around a troll.

Yes, I know, but I just couldn't resist...especially since I am running low on blogfodder:

Those who can't .... blog angrily.

Those who can't do what? Sing? Apparently this is someone I know who has heard me sing and didn't like it but was too chickenshit to tell me that I wasn't that good of a singer. Of course most folks who have heard me sing have told me I sound really good, but there are going to be those few who don't agree, and that's all right with me.

Maybe you and this moron can start a band and get out there and show everyone what it is like to be perfect.

Hooo, straw man! I never said anything about anyone being perfect. I don't think any of my favorite singers or bands are perfect. Hell, even George Strait and Alan Jackson have disappointed me periodically. (Never together, though. I'd love to see them record a duet album.)

It really sucks that in "almost" every Sugarland song there is a positive message. Despite whatever Ego issues you might have with them, few bands are as generous with their fans

Non sequitur alert! I fail to see where the "positive messages" come into this discussion. It wasn't about messages. It was about shitty pop music being marketed as country. Big difference there.

Unlike your blog, read by few which spews hatred.

Lol. So just because I don't like your pet band I spew hatred, despite the fact that I rave about my favorite music here more than I rag on Nashville music. Shades of the Carrie Cult here...

Oh and Sugarland made you a metalhead? Really?

If you'd read the blog you'd have been able to figure the answer to that out for yourself.

Sugarland would support your listening to multiple genres.

Sure they would, considering they try their hand at so many of them but country...

Sorry, dude. Hate to break it to you, but just because I don't like your favorite band doesn't make me a moron, a perfectionist, narrow-minded, jealous, or any other characteristic you'd like to attribute to me. Just like your liking them doesn't make YOU a moron. Different strokes for different folks. But you certainly seem to come with an unhealthy amount of insecurity and self-righteousness. You don't see me typing things like "George Strait sucks" or "Iron Maiden is lame" and going off to troll the blogs that come up in the results, do you? No. No you don't. Have a nice day now.

Who said this?

Right here:

"You read it on message boards, you see what people say or if I'm looking at a guitar website: 'Old country music! Whatever happened to old country music?' Well, it became old country music. And I love it. I love everything about it. I love the day and time of Johnny Cash and Buck Owens on the radio. I love it. But they aren't with us. We have what we have now, and I'm very proud of these people."

Tim McGraw? A member of Rascal Flatts? No. Avowed traditionalist Brad Paisley said this. And of course he has a right to his opinion, but if -- as CMW said -- this is Paisley "balancing traditionalism with relevance," then it sounds to me as if he's saying traditional country isn't all that relevant anymore. Which makes one wonder why he fancies himself as one....

Tuesday Music Musings: Sugarland and Carrie Underwood

Jennifer Nettles really said this about Sugarland's new album?

I think it’s inspired a lot of conversation about ‘what is country music today?’ That makes me feel very proud to be a part of that kind of cultural moment.

I wouldn't be surprised if most replies to that question, in the context of the new Sugarland album, go something like, "Whatever country music is, it sure as hell ain't this shit." I sat down and listened to "Stuck Like Glue," the album's first single, so as to make an informed decision; and the only thing I can say that as bad as Sugarland had sounded before, this was a thousand times worse. I don't necessarily think that blending genres is a bad thing, but that only works if the two genres share some stylistic elements. (How else could Willie Nelson or Waylon Jennings have pulled off "Midnight Rider"? It wouldn't have sounded nearly as good if the Allman Brothers had been part of, say, the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal.) Like CMW said, have they even been reading their own reviews? Good Christ, and people think DREAM THEATER is pretentious? I don't think James LaBrie or John Petrucci ever talked about their music the way Sugarland talked about themselves. Of course, they knew what they wanted to do and didn't go about shitting on a treasured genre the way Sugarland does either. But then I suppose Jennifer Nettles and Kristian Bush are catering to the people who didn't like country music to begin with, as evidenced by this comment to the CMT story:

FYI, I've been to a great deal of concerts, and when artists do covers, generally the covers AREN'T country songs. Tim McGraw sang an Elton John song for crying out loud, so you can't use Sugarland's covers as a strike against them.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Most of the country concerts I've been to have involved the artists doing covers of country songs. For every Jo Dee Messina covering Huey Lewis and the News, I have seen six or seven George Straits covering Bob Wills and Merle Haggard. And yes I CAN use Sugarland's covers as a strike against them. I have done the same with other artists and I don't understand why it can't be used as a valid yardstick to measure just how "country" an artist is. You wouldn't see me covering Metallica or Iron Maiden if I considered myself a country artist. I wouldn't do the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers or Bad Company either.

And what to make of Carrie Underwood?

I’m glad people can find some happy by telling people what they had for lunch.

Find some happy. This is a mass communication major with an emphasis in journalism saying this, friend -- not just a mass comm major, but one who graduated magna cum laude. I must say, that doesn't speak well of her alma mater's communications programs.

(h/t Country California)

Not just the books that are cheap...

...but the music, too.

Last Sunday after we went to the Longhorn Cafe, my lovely wife and I took a ride up to Half Price Books on Loop 410 to see what they had. What fun THAT was. I could've spent next month's rent in there, and not just on the books; they had a pretty good selection of used music, on cd AND vinyl! Would that I had a record player; I could've gotten out of there with this on vinyl for two bucks. (Not the remaster, of course, but the original.) I did manage to get out of there with a copy of Rush's Moving Pictures cd for $5.98, where the cheapest I could've gotten it new was $7.99 at Best Buy. I've heard most of the songs on it and really like them; the only ones I haven't heard yet are "Witch Hunt" and "The Camera Eye." And I'm sure you know by now which song I bought that cd for, though I do like the ones I've heard...

Oh, and did you know Steve Earle wrote a book? I got that one too.


(this post brought to you by Tam)

One down, and how many to go?

My email to Ken Hoffman re: this column:

Hi Ken, longtime reader here. You might want to rethink one of your arguments for including Neil Diamond in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:

"ABBA, Louis Armstrong, Chet Atkins, Leonard Cohen, Nat King Cole, Woody Guthrie, the Ink Spots and Brenda Lee are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and they have nothing to do with rock ' n' roll."

This is true, but you know what? It is precisely for that reason many people (including myself) think the RRHOF has gotten to be a complete joke, to the point that it would almost be a compliment NOT to be inducted into the Hall. Consider this list of who has not been inducted, from the comments to a Chron.com story from July 2009:

Not Inducted (meeting all criteria): Deep Purple, Bad Company, Cheap Trick, Supertramp, ELP, The Hollies, Badfinger, Blind Faith, The Moody Blues, Squeeze, Peter Frampton, Humble Pie, Little Feat, Kansas, ELO, The Scorpions, Sweet, Boston, The Cars, Nazareth. REO Speedwagon, Sammy Hagar, Steve Winwood, Joan Armatrading, Thin Lizzy, Yes & Judas Priest.

And then, of course, there's the glaring example of Rush, which has been a huge influence on several subgenres of rock and which has made some of the most thought-provoking and timeless music of ANY genre. "Red Barchetta" all by itself should have been enough to get them in. But you know why they're not? Because Jann Wenner doesn't like progressive rock.

So...yeah. The RRHOF is a joke. If Diamond doesn't get in you shouldn't consider it that big of an insult.

His response:

The Hollies are in.

Hokay, so I guess my whole point was negated with that.

/sarcasm

Another fun meme!

I stole this from Facebook, since I am a bit short on blogfodder today...
1) Turn on your music player on your computer.

(2) Go to SHUFFLE songs mode.

(3) Write down the first 15 songs that come up--song title and artist--NO editing/cheating, please.

(4) Choose some people to be tagged. It is generally considered to be in good taste to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I'm betting that your musical selection is entertaining, or at least amusing.

To do this, go to "NOTES" under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, enter your 15 Shuffle Songs, Tag people (under the post) then click Publish.

1. Grand Funk Railroad, "Some Kind of Wonderful"
2. Alan Jackson, "A Little Bluer Than That"
3. Brian Burns and Larry Joe Taylor, "Third Coast"
4. Van Halen, "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love"
5. Waylon Jennings, "Rainy Day Woman"
6. Iron Maiden, "Flash of the Blade"
7. Queensryche, "Take Hold of the Flame" (recorded live in LaCrosse, WI, 1991)
8. Merle Haggard, "Mama Tried"
9. Megadeth, "Rust in Peace (Polaris)"
10. Rush, "Red Barchetta"
11. Queensryche, "Another Rainy Night"
12. Evanescence, "Lithium"
13. Pantera, "Cowboys From Hell"
14. Lefty Frizzell, "Long Black Veil"
15. Steve Earle, "Hillbilly Highway"

That's a pretty good snapshot of my tastes these days. Anyone who wants to play, go ahead...

"You suck AND your fans are stupid!"

I don't think I could cast such a wide net when it comes Sugarland fans, but it's hard not to when I get comments like this:

let me guess, you love Taylor Swift?

Yeah, I think Taylor Swift is the best thing ever. You blithering idiot.

Why Sugarland sucks, in Kristian Bush's own words.

Right here:

Add a dash of Blondie, Simple Minds, the Clash and Johnny Cash -- this is what you're going to come up with.

As C.M. Wilcox said, "Cash stopped being a useful reference around the time EVERYONE started claiming him as an influence. But I’ll bite. Where, pray tell, can he be heard in the music of Sugarland?"

More than that, though, is it just me or is that a rather...unappetizing mishmash of so-called influences? There are going to be some influences that when they come together are going to be the audio equivalent of steak dipped in chocolate pudding -- that is, the way those influences come together isn't going to sound that good. Longtime readers, you know what I like; you know it tends to be pretty far apart on the musical spectrum, to the point that if I was going to be a country singer, only part of what I listen to would influence that. For example, it would be really weird for me to claim Queensryche and Iron Maiden as influences on me as an artist alongside Merle Haggard and George Strait; if they really were that big of an influence, well, my music probably wouldn't sound too country, would it? Probably wouldn't even sound all that GOOD, for that matter, which would imply that I didn't know my limitations as an artist. I would have reviewers saying the same thing about me as at least one reviewer says about Sugarland's new album:

They decided to be its Starship instead, rejecting everything that made them distinctive and relevant and embracing a musical style that they aren’t even able to do competently, let alone do well.

And you know what? I wouldn't want that. Not that the critics always know what they're talking about, but what if my fans thought the same thing? It should be noted that the above review was from a blog, as opposed to a newspaper with its Authorized Critic -- which arguably gives it more credibility because said reviewer is a fan of the genre. And lest you think that negative opinion was confined to just the reviewer, consider these words from another fan in the comments:

Maybe Jenifer and Kristian will actually take the hint and realize that their desire to be “innovative” and act as if their albums are the next great masterpeices (sic) of history is not working. I used to respect them, but their egos need to be taken down a notch or two.

And I'm glad I stumbled upon that, because it strikes me as exactly what bugs me so much about the band -- at least if Kristian Bush's previous musings are any indication of how he and lead singer Jennifer Nettles feel about what they do.

Of course, that's not to say that I thought what they were doing before was really that good, but hey, blog fodder...

"Hey Lizzie, well a man's got to have a dream..."

Thanks, AlanDP, for reminding me of this song.



My favorite Tanya Tucker song, "Lizzie and the Rainman" was a No. 1 hit in 1975 and according to Wikipedia was her highest-charting pop hit, reaching No. 37 on the Billboard Hot 100 that year. Pop hit or not, that was still a great record. Tanya Tucker had a great voice for a teenager. Such a shame the only time that song ever gets played anymore is on the weekend night classic country shows...

I had the same reaction....

...that Sabra did upon hearing KJ97 was named the CMA Major Market Station of the Year. She got this look on her face like she was about to cry. They were talking about it on WOAI earlier this morning as I was taking the older two girls to school. The morning show hosts had one of the station's deejays on and they made the observation that it wasn't the music that got the station the award, and I thought that was sadly all too appropriate, considering they play the same Nashville crap that everyone else does.

As Sabra said, though, at least it wasn't Y100...

Generation contribution overvaluation?

This quote from Kevin J. Coyne at Country Universe was chock-full of WIN:

I’m sorry, but today’s current crop of country stars are collectively less talented, less compelling, less interesting, and quite frankly, less capable with a pen, guitar, and microphone than even the B-list stars of the eighties and nineties....

...please look to Randy Travis, Alan Jackson, Trisha Yearwood, Patty Loveless, and just about all of the other big eighties and nineties stars for how to produce good country music.  For (Hilary) Scott to think that her generation is actually improving the genre, she must either have remarkably bad taste in music, or a nineties record collection that runs no deeper than Linda Davis.

It strikes me that so many country artists these days think WAY too much of their generation and its contributions to the genre. To this you can add Rascal Flatts frontman Gary Levox saying "we've helped other genres look at country music like country’s pretty cool now," and of course then there’s Eric Church’s constant poseury as some sort of modern-day Outlaw. I really don't give a damn if Church DOES hang out with Jamey Johnson; he still isn't in the same league, let alone the same ballpark. And who could forget Brad Paisley's remarks about how "progressive" country music is these days? I will say that Brad does redeem himself now and then, though, as does Jamey Johnson*, who I'm sure would be catching his own share of flak if it were someone else writing this rant and not I.

On another note, like Kevin I don't understand this fixation with writing one's own material. What's wrong with recognizing your limitations as an artist? I don't see the fact that George Strait wrote so little of his own music as making him less of an artist. And while I think Alan Jackson's probably the best singer-songwriter to come down the pike (as far as mainstream country goes) in at least the last 25 years, some of his best material has come from the pens of other writers -- "Gone Country," "Everything I Love" and "Monday Morning Church" immediately come to mind. Some might even say these days that he could stand to use more material from outside writers. Some folks are better at writing than others, and better that they recognize that than muddle their way through something that turns out not so well...

*(To be honest, I'm totally willing to let Jamey Johnson off the hook, because he at least walks the walk -- or, more appropriately, records the records. Yeah, yeah, I know, "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk." So sue me. ;-))

There is a silver lining, I suppose...

...to Rolling Stone magazine being yet another PR firm for the Democratic Party.

You'll recall my musing in this space before about Rolling Stone's (and publisher Jann Wenner's) cluelessness vis-a-vis rock music and who should be recognized in a Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame worthy of the name. Well, the 2011 nominees were announced this morning -- and it looks like cock-rockers extroadinaire Bon Fucking Jovi, dance music gurus Donna Summer and Chic, and punk-rockers-turned-hip-hoppers the Beastie Boys get nominated this year while the greats of the '70s and '80s still get the finger. (Can anyone explain to me why, for example, Bad Company and Rush are still not in the Hall of Fame? Rush put out some of the most intelligent and thought-provoking music of all time, and their influence on the rock genre and several subgenres is pretty much undeniable. As for Bad Company, they put out some of the most enduring, timeless straight-ahead rock of the decade -- AFTER forming from the ashes of several defunct bands.) And of course, there was that letter, which is pretty self-explanatory...

With as clueless as these people are about American rock music, their declared area of expertise (the Hall of Fame nominating committee consists of -- among others -- Wenner and several current and former RS writers, IIRC, with Wenner exerting substantial influence over who ultimately makes the cut), why should anyone give a shit about what they say about anything else?

(Welcome, visitors from MArooned! Main page is here, pull up a seat and stay a while!)

Do what, Kenny Chesney?

I have to wonder what kinds of people Kenny Chesney talks to and/or hangs out with...

You could ask a guy my age or 90 when was he the happiest and had the most fun, and everybody that I have talked to said it was when they played high school football.

I guess this is probably the band nerd in me talking, but I can't imagine ever saying anything like that. I had fun in high school, and my experiences with the band ranked way up there, but it certainly isn't where my happiness in life peaked. Of course I've mentioned before that that I identify a lot more with songs like Cross Canadian Ragweed's "17" than, say, Jason Michael Carroll's "Where I'm From," the tune that mentions a variety of cliches, among them the quarterback dating the homecoming queen -- but even so, I'd like to think that even if I had been the star quarterback it wouldn't have been when I was "happiest and had the most fun." Maybe that's not a fair assessment of what Kenny Chesney's saying, but if that's the case why is it that he so often goes back to that particular well? "Young," "Never Wanted Nothing More," "I Go Back," and now "The Boys of Fall"? I understand looking back on those days fondly now and then, but there's a difference between that and what seems like constantly having your head turned...

(h/t Country California)

Well, why would they?

From the San Antonio Express-News:

How do Slayer's and Megadeth's albums hold up in a live setting 20 years down the line? Rock critic Bill Brownlee caught the two bands last month at Capitol Federal Park at Sandstone Amphitheater in Bonner Springs, Kan.

“As each band performed the entirety of those albums,” Brownlee wrote in the Kansas City Star, “it became clear that neither work has lost any of its sinister significance.”

Why would that music lose any of its significance? I can't really speak on Slayer, as Tom Araya's singing style never appealed to me so I never explored their music that much -- but I do have Megadeth's Rust in Peace, and it's a great record. There are those who say it's the band's best, but I don't have all of them so I can't really make a decision on that -- but it is very, very good. "Holy Wars (The Punishment Due)," "Hangar 18," "Tornado of Souls," the title track -- all those songs are timeless classics of the genre and stand quite well on their own merits both lyrically and musically. Metal itself at best is given short shrift as a genre and at worst is looked down upon by so many people, but it's every bit as valid and vital a genre of American and world music as any other. And, yes, 20 years later Rust In Peace is still a great record. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I hate that it took me 20 years to discover this music. I was missing out on so, so very much.

Monday Music Musings: Billy Currington and Rascal Flatts

Why, Billy Currington? Why?

I remember I first came out with a song that I really promise I was never going to put on an album or come out with first. It was called ‘Walk a Little Straighter.’ It was personal about my dad. It was sad, not sad, but it was happy sad. I learned that I really don’t want to be a part of those types of songs on the radio. 

I remember "Walk A Little Straighter." I thought it was a great record and thought it was a shame that song didn't do well on the charts. What's wrong with those sad songs? I thought those songs were part of the backbone of country music. Why would Billy Currington not want to make more beautifully poignant music like that? Does he WANT to be known as a one-trick pony with little to no depth? *really bad segue following here* Sabra told me she hated the Jamey Johnson song "In Color." She told me she heard it and thought, "How vapid!" or something to that effect. I don't agree with her assessment, as you might remember if you're a longtime reader; I thought it was quite poignant and beautifully evocative, arguably the best single song to come out of Nashville in at least the last decade. But I was thinking the other day as Currington's "Pretty Good At Drinkin' Beer" was playing on my daily radio-surf on the ride to work, "You know, even if I did share Sabra's opinion of 'In Color,' this song would still make it sound positively Haggardesque." I'm all for fun, uptempo songs, but some of them just really suck. I hate to see Currington waste that voice on such crap. Like C.M. Wilcox said, "Since 'Walk a Little Straighter' was the song that got me interested in him in the first place, I guess it’s safe to stop paying attention now?" Sure sounds that way...

Next up in the sights, songwriter Chris Sligh on writing for Rascal Flatts:

They kind of have a formula that works very, very well for them, and the nice thing about [lead singer] Gary’s voice is that he has one of the few in country music that has that range of an octave-and-a-half. That’s the nice thing about writing for Flatts — you can write real pop songs...

Contrary to what you might think, I didn't think about the 'pop songs' mention when I pondered this comment. (Hellooo, broadening horizons!) It was this:

Octave-and-a-half vocal range? Sligh sounds like he thinks that's something really special. And I suppose it might be -- until you consider the fact that Iron Maiden lead singer Bruce Dickinson has about a three-octave range, Queensryche frontman Geoff Tate can go four octaves, and then there was Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury with his seven(!)-octave range. Different genres, I know, but since Sligh was talking about pop songs anyway I still think it's a valid comparison. Let's see what Gary LeVox could do with "Aces High" or "Deliverance." On second thought, how about we not go there...

(h/t Country California)

Hit-n-run: Been done before, but better...

And yeah, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.

I'm sure the writers of Jason Aldean's "Crazy Town" probably thought they were bringing a fresh new song idea to the table...but how many of you remember this song?